Two things I've been pondering in the aftermath of the Iowa caucuses.

1. The "power" of the union vote. Dick Gephardt and Howard Dean both went into Iowa with the lion's share of union backing, with Gephardt having more of the traditional labor backing. They both fall, Gephardt to the point of dropping out of the race. Inasmuch as the labor vote was ever a monolith (kind of like any of the racial or gender-based voting blocs that are always mentioned as if they're an offshoot of the Borg), it's not now.

You could see this coming a little bit in 2000, when W was able to fracture West Virginia's usually strong pro-Dems union vote by campaining heavily on the theme that Gore was going to take everyone's guns away (among other things; this was the angle that most stood out to me at the time).

Speaking of 2000...

2. Bill Bradley + four years = Howard Dean? While the power of the Internet is one of the major stories from the Dean campaign, Bill Bradley should get the real credit for melding electoral politics and on-line support. Dean's been able to get more mileage out of it given some of the new tools, like blogging, Meetup, etc.

This similarity is playing itself out a little in results, as Bradley (like Dean?) peaked too early. Bradley never recovered. I don't think it's necessarily that dire for Dean, but it's not looking good. It's probably too early to say it's a trend, but clearly heavy reliance on the Internet is only taking candidates so far. It may be that each successive election will take the Internet candidate a little farther, though I think demographics may be what ultimately allows the Internet candidate to succeed (unless our gains in health care mean that we have a bump of elderly baby boomers who will vote but not use a computer when they are 110).

While I am nowhere near ready to say I've made up my mind, I find that my thinking is beginning to look eerily like the Bruce's where the Democratic presidential candidates are concerned. It's mostly based on gut feeling and news reports, which strikes me as sub-optimal. Were I to rank them today, it'd probably be like this:

1. Edwards, more for his optimism and a hoped-for ability to attract southern voters.
2. Dean, though he may have moved from "good crazy" to "too crazy".
3. Clark, but his "junior officer" comments aimed at Kerry make Clark seem like the most insecure general ever. He's also been getting help from some of Clinton's folks, and I'd like to avoid bringing them back.
4. Kerry, mostly for being the local fave.
5. Kucinich, who may take the "good crazy" mantle from Dean. He'd actually be an interesting Green Party candidate.
6. Lieberman, who I've never really cottoned to. My boss is a Connecticut native and Dem, and she doesn't like him. And he was Gore's running mate. Strike three.
7. Sharpton, I mean, really. I fear that he may wind up as the Green Party candidate.